Mumbai Court April 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the Dy. Assessor and C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR798; (2008)110BOMLR1655; 2008(44)MhLj887
R.S. Mohite, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and its officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellants' against M/s. Bengal Iron Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondents') The appeal impugns a judgment and order dated 6.1.1994 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Greater Bombay in Municipal Appeal No. 64 of 1993. By the impugned judgment and order, the additional Chief Judge allowed the appellants appeal and set aside the levy of octroi at 4% ad-valorem on the disputed goods. He directed that Octroi be levied on the same goods at 2.5%. There was also a direction that the amount, if any, recovered in excess at 2.5% was to be refunded to the appellant therein.2. The brief facts of the case were as under.a) The respondents were a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture, marketing and selling cast iron pipes and pipe fittings. They were required to import their goods into the octroi limits of...
Vasant Dattatraya Sarade Vs. Manohar Dattatraya Sarade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR826; 2008(6)BomCR255; (2008)110BOMLR1519
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is a Second Appeal at the instance of defendant against whom decree was passed by the first appellate Court for declaration and possession. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:Plaintiff and defendant are real brothers. The suit property was their ancestral property. The property came in the hands of their father Dattatraya. Thereafter Dattatraya died in the year 1947 leaving behind him three sons i.e. plaintiff, defendant and one Awadhut and widow Parvatibai. He also left behind him large property. There was a partition between the plaintiff, defendant their mother Parvatibai and brother in the year 1966. Each of the parties was given a separate share. Some property was allotted to Parvatibai the mother. It was agreed between the parties that upon death of Parvatibai the property held by her would go to the plaintiff and his two brothers. It is contended that after this ...
Ramdulari W/O Matabdalsingh and Subhadra W/O Maharajsingh (Dead) (Lega ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR266
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is second appeal by the defendants against whom decree has been passed. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows -Plaintiff No. 1 Meerabai is the legally wedded wife of one Bharatsingh, who was the owner of field Survey No. 6/1, admeasuring 29 acres of village Dadapur in Chandrapur district. The field was in possession of the plaintiff since it was handed over to her by Bharatsingh in the year 1952 in lieu of maintenance. This possession was confirmed by said Bharatsingh by executing another agreement in favour of plaintiff No. 1 in the year 1968. Again in the year 1973, Bharatsingh executed a Will and confirmed the right of plaintiff over the field for her maintenance. Plaintiff No. 2 is the foster son of Bharatsingh. Defendant nos.1 and 2 are not directly related to Bharatsingh. The plaintiff, however, gives a genealogy as follows -Hanumansingh (dead) Ramanathsingh| || |...
Ravi S/O Anandilal Umre and ors. Vs. Collector and anr. and Pradeepsin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR34; 2008(6)BomCR760; 2008(3)MhLj758
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties as short question is involved. Counsel for the respondents and intervenors waive notice. By consent, matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.3. The short question that arises for our consideration is; whether the application submitted by the petitioners for recognizing Aghadi dated 26-12-2006 to the Collector, Wardha is barred by limitation? The requirement to register Aghadi emanates from the mandate of Section 63 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (in short, the Act). The admitted facts are that the election results were declared on 27-11-2006 and in terms of Section 63, applications for recognizing Aghadi was required to be submitted within a period of not more than one month from the date of notification of election results.4. It is the case of the petitioners that such application was submitted to the Coll...
Atul Nanasaheb Kambe and ors. Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR369; 2008(5)MhLj452
A.H. Joshi, J.1. On 11th April, 2008, this Court had issued notice of final disposal, in response whereof, the respondents are present before this Court.2. Hence Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. Petitioners' grievance is that though proviso to Rule 36(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 provides as follows:36. Voters' list-(1) ...Provided that where a person is qualified to vote from traders constituency or from Hamals and weighmens constituency his name shall appear in the respective register maintained by the market committee atleast 3 months before the preparation of such lists.the impugned order is passed disregarding the said Rule.4. According to petitioners, Section 13(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, which reads as follows:13. Constitution of Market Committees.(1) ...(a) ... (b) two shall be elected by traders and commission agents, holding licenses for not less than two years to o...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Punjsons Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR641
Khandeparkar, R.M.S., J.1. Not on board. Mentioned. Taken up on board on request.Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent. The Advocate for the respondents waives service.2. This Notice of Motion is taken out for condonation of delay in filing the cross objections in Appeal No. 114 of 1999.3. It is the case of the appellant/original respondent in the appeal that considering the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 read with Rules 1, 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no delay as such in filing the cross objections, in as much as that there had been no service of notice of hearing of the Appeal at any point of time upon the appellant-respondents. In any case and assuming that the applicant-respondent had notice of the hearing of the appeal on 16th February, 1999 on which day the appeal was admitted, there is delay of only 33 days in filing the cross objections and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is sufficient cause for condonation thereof.On the other hand, ...
Makers Development Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR1; 2008(5)BomCR821; (2008)110BOMLR1406
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Plaintiff has in prayers (a) to (f) of this Notice of Motion sought orders directing the Defendant to do and perform all acts, deeds, matters and things and to execute all documents and writings to enable it to continue construction on the suit land in terms of the suit contract and for orders consequent thereto and in connection therewith. I have rejected these prayers. In prayer (g) the Plaintiff has sought an order injuncting the Defendants from selling, transferring, dealing with, disposing of or creating any thirdparty rights or interest in or entering into any agreement or arrangement with anyone else in respect of the suit land or any part thereof. I have granted this prayer. 2. The suit is filed for a declaration that the suit contract set out in paragraph 65 of the plaint is valid subsisting and binding and for the specific performance thereof. The Plaintiff has also sought a declaration that the unilateral repudiation of the suit contract is illegal an...
Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Soci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR163; 2008(3)BomCR727; 2008(6)MhLj47
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai on 4/4/2007 in S.C. Suit No. 1767 of 2004. The said suit was dismissed with costs. 2 The suit was filed by the appellant-company for the following substantial relief:That the defendants, office bearers, committee members, members, servants, agents or any other person claiming through them be restrained by an order of permanent injunction of this Hon'ble Court from encroaching upon/ trespassing on the suit premises and/or in any manner disturbing/ obstructing /interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises i.e. 25 number of parking spaces in the stilt portion of the building by name Panchali, as more particularly shown in the plan annexed at Exhibit 'A' hereto, situated at Indraprasta Enclave, N.L. Complex, Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East), Mumbai 400 068.3. The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company, representing...
Amit Ashok thepade and ors. Vs. Shah Nagindas Manchharam and Sons and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR649
Mhatrre Nishita, J.1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the J.M.F.C. Kolhapur in S.C.C. No. 3196 of 2003 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 48 of 2007. Besides this, it is also prayed that the proceedings in S.C.C. No. 3196 of 2003 pending for trial before the J.M.F.C. Kolhapur be quashed in exercise of this Court's powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The main contention raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that the notice of demand is faulty since the demand does not specify the amount of the cheque which has allegedly been dishonoured. He submits that this notice which has been issued to the petitioners on 21.7.2003 is a composite notice demanding an amount of Rs. 3,97,976/- when the cheque allegedly dishonoured was only for an amount of Rs. 1,98,988/-.3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers and C...
State Bank of India Vs. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR811]; (2008)IIILLJ487Bom
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal has passed the following Order:The action of the Management of the Bank in terminating the services of the workmen cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified.. Hence, the reference is to be dismissed accordingly. But the workmen under reference should be employed as daily wagers till the final recruitment in accordance with law by the Bank. The-workmen are not entitled for back wages2-A. Mr. Pangam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that such part of the award which directs that the workmen under reference should be employed as daily wagers, is not in accordance with law and completely outside the scope of reference, which reads as follows:Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Panaji, Goa in terminating the service of 7 Security Guards as per list attached with effect from January 15, 2002 is legal and justified? If not, what reli...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »